2. music
  3. 176226-2248

One guitar, or three?

Many fans of Rock music guitar playing consider the players who were the only guitarist in their band "the best": Jimi Hendrix (in The Experience), Eric Clapton (in Cream), Jeff Beck (post-Yardbirds), Jimmy Page, Billy Gibbons (ZZ Top), Eddie Van Halen, Stevie Ray Vaughan, the clown in Black Sabbath, etc. etc.

I on the other hand have a love of not the classic 2-guitar line-up (The Beatles, Stones, Rockpile, etc.)---good as that can be---, but of 3-guitar bands: Buffalo Springfield, Moby Grape, Fleetwood Mac in their Peter Green/Danny Kirwin/Jeremy Spencer period, and The Flamin’ Groovies in the Shake Some Action album era.

Three guitars is even more musical than two, and far more so than one. All kinds of little song parts are possible with three musical instruments, and Springfield and The Grape really exploited the possibilities. One guitar is so, well, 1-dimensional. Sure, on recordings the single guitarist in a band can recorded multiple parts, but "lead" guitarists rarely think in "song part" terms, but instead in "guitar chops" terms. Know what I mean?

I bought the first two albums by both Cream and Hendrix when they were released, and saw both live twice in 1967 and ’68. But the music of both got old pretty quickly, I losing interest after those albums. You may disagree. ;-)

Now, one guitar is fine if you have other musical instruments (bass and drums can be played musically, but they aren’t "chordal" instruments), such as piano and/or organ. Two of Rock ’n’ Roll’s most musical ensembles had both piano and organ, and only one guitar: The Band and Procol Harum. Those bands also had great songs. Coincidence?

If anyone has other 3-guitar bands/groups to recommend, I’m all ears.

128x128bdp24
valinar
470 posts
 

Short lived but thoroughly enjoyed, The Traveling Wilburys.

rickdoesaudio's avatar
rickdoesaudio
56 posts
 

Al Di Meola, John McLaughlin and Paco De Lucia

Friday Night in San Francisco

Not rock and roll, but 3 of the best players in the world

IMHO of course

Not an everyday listen....but the boys get down

Give your system a little warm-up workout

bdp24's avatar
bdp24 OP
9,412 posts
 

Excellent nomination @valinar! In fact, five guitarists, but only one (Harrison) a lead player (Orbison, Dylan, Petty and---I think---Lynne rhythm only players). Acoustic guitars sound huge when double-tracked in recordings (an old trick); can you imagine four of them?!

stuartk
2,334 posts
 

@bdp24 

I'm really curious about what you meant when you said you find Jazz is "too urban".

Care to elaborate further?

 

 

bdp24's avatar
bdp24 OP
9,412 posts
 

Yeah @stuartk, I thought using the term Urban might raise some eyebrows ;-) .

Though now commonly used as a synonym for black, I used the term more literally: city music, irrespective of the ethnicity of the people making the music. The sound of a bunch of horns squawking away---very common in Jazz music---reminds me of car horns blaring in a traffic jam. The sound of a piano playing chords with dissonant notes (also common in Jazz) evokes in me the sense of tension and danger I felt while living in New York City. I saw some sick, twisted people there, lots of them. Couldn’t wait to get out.

I like stringed instruments, more common in what I call "Rural" music. And harmony singing, very, very rare in Urban music. Bluegrass, Hillbilly, Hard Country, Rockabilly, Gospel (see, it’s not about ethnicity ;-), Blues (ditto), etc.

On the other hand, I love 50’s and 60’s Soul music, which many consider Urban. Not necessarily. Motown (which I also don’t care for) sounds Urban to me, but Stax and Atlantic (which I love) don’t. Motown was recorded in Detroit, Stax and Atlantic in Tennessee and Alabama. Urban vs. Rural.

And I think of the music from my youth---the Garage Bands of San Jose, CA---what Rock ’n’ Roll historian Greg Shaw called Ground Zero for that genre---as Suburban ;-) .

More to discover